116 comments:

Since talent is completely subjective, saying that someone with one type of pigment need 100% more of an incalculable quantity is ridiculous. Yeah, I know, I'm being overly literal. But if you don't, they go all Don Imus on you.

I think they were all kind of weak last night, although i missed one performance getting dinner.

Anyway, the claim that you need twice the talent can be negated by two words Fantasia Barrino (sp?).

Anyone who says she had twice the talent of the people she beat that year have to get their ears cleaned out. Mind you, as memory served i basically agreed with that outcome, but saying she was the best and saying she was twice as good are two different things.

but really at some point we have to stop playing this game of "count the minorities."

This show has never been solely about talent, it's about a bunch of things, talent being one of them. There is also looks, genre, song choice, what the producers are looking for that year, etc..etc...

If there is a minority problem on this show, it is more about hte producers picking (at least in later years) people who can't win or aren't current, and I don't think that's malice as much as old britishness. And the addition of instruments probably changed the game a bit.

Here we go. Going to start up with that lame bullshit once again to make up for the lack of talent. It's never not talented enough it's racism, it's never not qualified it's racism, it's never you didn't work hard enough it's the man done me wrong. It pays to be the victim. But only for so long.

When the team of sorority Zeta Tau Alpha, who just happen to be white, won a stepping competition (a traditionally black college sport) the compeition was stopped after black contender complaints and a black team was given the title instead.

This is an example of actual black racism against white people, versus hypothetical white racism.

Thinking back to the 2nd season, I always thought that Reben was pretty good, like he would be the guy that could sing out of a high school group, but not anywhere near as great as the judges kept insisting. (which they did really hard, if you didn't watch)

I'm no great (or even good) judge of music, but his weak career since the show seems to bear that out. I hate to think this, but I always wondered if the judges were pushing him harder because of his race.

One could argue that the process of narrowing the field down to the point when the "public" can vote may have some prejudice built in (in certainly does in some respects, not necessarialy racial) but I don't believe the "growing theory" about needing twice the talent.

Anyone who has watched the show knows popularity (e.g. Taylor Hicks) often trumps talent. To the extent that hurts "minority" contestants, I guess that includes other categories (Mormons with obnoxious fathers, not quite so open gays, bald headed rockers, long haired southern boys) who just happen to be white.

Snark aside, Wisconsin is approximately 6.1% black. The metro the school is located in is approx 5.8% black. Apparently you'd be just hunky-dorey if they hired about seven more people? What if they were all conservative blacks? What if they were all black conservative men?

And for the record, I don't watch AI - not because I'm black but because there's no real talent, besides people trying to ape Mariah Carey, who's trying to ape Whitney Houston, who's trying to ape Aretha Franklin, the only real original talent amongst them.

And, yes, I purposely put "ape" in there:

Have at it, Kids!

wv: cheatie - what we should call those who attempt to subvert the concept of talent by going on AI.

Jason Castro made it to top 4 until they drove him out. His album comes out next month, I think. Seriously, when you only have ONE representative of any given nationality, sometimes they’re going to go down. It’s a numbers game. (sometimes they stick around forever, long after people have been wishing them gone. Aloha Jasmine Trias of S3!)

How did The Shaggs - a group of girls who taught themselves how to write songs that are probably despised by most listeners, and have no chance of being played on the radio, or ever appearing on AI - get called "better than The Beatles" by stellar musicians like Frank Zappa?

Why do Jazz musicians play something different - and usually harsher on the ears - after the rubes go home?

How did Johnny Rotten's cat-in-a-mousetrap yell become the voice of a generation?

In a world of "talent", as defined by AI fandom, these things shouldn't happen - unless there's something else at work that most don't include in their judgement of it. (Like a little something called "originality".) Like I said, most are clueless to what constitutes talent.

And, Alex, I'm sure - 100% positive even - I listen to more new music than everyone on this blog. Not just this thread but this entire blog. The difference is, as any serious conversation about talent on AI will indicate, I just have higher standards and won't lower them for the sake of group-think. You like Reuben? Great, go for it. But don't try to sell him to me as some great talent - or even a mediocre one - because he ain't:

He's a place-holder until the mindless mob gets out the way and the talented ones are allowed to shine.

You've had how many years of AI now? How many winners? And it's all added up to what? I'll tell you:

Bupkiss.

That's what the "talent" on AI is.

And, finally, here's a promise:

I'm almost out of debt, and, once I am, I'm going to blow y'all away with how fast I own the world of music. I'm watching everything really carefully - from AI to Lady Gaga to Flying Lotus to whoever - and there's nothing standing in my way. As a matter of fact, I'd say that's the most revealing aspect of the NewAge of Obama:

At some point in a minority person's life, the affirmative action will stop. When you're helped in getting to Hollywood but not once you're there (see MadisonMan's comment), you'll start actually being judged on your merit and fail -- like you would (should) have before.

So isn't it better to discriminate on the basis of talent in the first place?

Or is the difference not taking affirmative action at all, but that it's talent contest -> popularity contest?

Like Lady Gaga's outfits, this is what goes into judging today's musical talent. Nothing to do with the ears - or even the musical canon of what's good - but group-think.

One of my favorite moments, still, was when Susan Boyle got laughed at by the mob for how she looked and then proceeded to shut them up by actually singing. Boyle's no great talent but she still made the point clear:

Those who buy into the AI idea are clueless, to art, talent, or any of the higher callings that actually make one an artist.

You've said nothing yet to back up your claim that talent isn't subjective. In fact, you said anyone making the claim that talent is subjective is ignorant.

Your comment previous citing various names from the music industry seemed to support the opposite of your claim. You've yet to point to an objective measure of talent.

I spent nearly a decade in the radio side of the music industry and have a lot of experience on how the various facets of that chaotic industry function. There's no possible way you can make "talent" objective, saying that if you just have all of this and that, a veritable check list of "things" you will be talented. You can check off things like "plays guitar", "took voice lessons", "can read music", "knows digital production in three different suites", and still be horrible at all of them.

Talent is subjective. Music artists (art is subjective) are wholly beholden to the whims to the segment of the consumer public that supports their work.

This thread has confirmed that I have made at least 1 good decision in my life: I have never watched American Idol for more than the time taken to change to the next channel, or the last few seconds as the DVR started to record the next show.

I knew from the beginning that the types of singers chosen would not be to my liking. Nothing I have heard on TV or the radio since has proven me wrong. De gustibus non est disputandum, y'all.

"You can check off things like "plays guitar", "took voice lessons", "can read music", "knows digital production in three different suites", and still be horrible at all of them."

I agree. None of those things adds up to a talent for any of them. But that checklist you're looking for doesn't exist - talent is ephemeral: it's not a loaf of bread you can pull off the shelf as AI pretends to - which is why Johnny Rotten has it and Reuben Stoddard doesn't, even if more people like what Reuben does than Johnny's work. Talent ain't no popularity contest and, maybe, is best judged by those who have it:

The moment after I finished watching the performances last week, I thought "Man, there is going to be a minor uproar tomorrow when 3 or 4 black contestants are eliminated." This pseudo-controversy has been around since the 3 divas split each others votes and were all in the bottom 3 in season 3 (of course one of them went on to win the season). John Park being eliminated instead of Todrick (who could have gone just as easily) made the controversy about "minority" contestants instead of black, but I still think the proposition is pretty ridiculous. The minority contestants suck this year. In previous years when they've been better, they've done very well, including 3 of the top 4 in season 6 and 3 of 8 winners overall.

Which is not to say the show has never reflected America's prejudices. Arguably being gay hurt Adam, or on the other side, being too religious hurt Mandisa. But the best example I think was Jordin Sparks making it into the final over the seemingly much more talented Melinda Doolittle. Obviously there were a lot of factors at play, including Jordin's relative youth and beauty and Melinda's awful decision not to sing My Funny Valentine that week. Yet I can't help but think that part of Jordin's appeal was that she was light skinned and sang old white diva standards (she wanted to be like Shirley Bassey, obv) instead of R&B.

You've had how many years of AI now? How many winners? And it's all added up to what? I'll tell you:

Bupkiss.

Kelly Clarkson has an amazing voice. I think your hatred of AI is blinding you to that fact. There are terrible singers who make in the real world and amazing singers who don’t. And Vice Versa. Same for AI.

I don't watch AI anymore because it's a huge time suck and because I can't stand the judges, but there have been plenty of talented singers on the show.

Btw, the people who bombastically proclaim that all the singers on Idol are terrible don't know what they're talking about. I've talked to some incredible musicians and they've said pretty much the same thing that anyone with common sense who watches the show with an open mind will say: Some of the singers are extremely talented, some of them are more style than substance, and some are terrible.

"Music artists (art is subjective) are wholly beholden to the whims to the segment of the consumer public that supports their work."

Bullshit again. The Shaggs are good - brilliant even - whether anyone had ever heard of them, or liked them, or not. The same thing goes for those after-hours Jazz musicians:

Talent ain't about being liked, or being liked enough to get on the radio, or any of that. It's about the musical canon - and where you stack up in regards to that - whether you're aware of it or not. Lady Gaga is currently the hot electronic artist, but she's talentless compared to Derrick May and the other (gay) guys who invented Detroit Techno and Chicago House. (She even said her music sucks, unless you're on ecstacy, proving she knows more about the scam she's getting away with than her fans. She'd better keep those costumes comin',...)

Crack - I am agreeing with you. AI is nonsense. It's the glitzier hi-tech replacement for "Star Search" if you remember that program. Also you failed to address my point about radio being a cesspool of top 40/rap.

Probably the producers are weeping and gnashing their teeth that they don't have a suitable black female for that viewing demographic this season, but the simple truth is they don't. They do have one black guy that looks like he is going deep into this season, more so since he will get all the black "tribal vote".

A bigger problem is AI really needs to get some hot Latin talent, and it exists, and they just haven't worked to pull it in to tryouts. The Hispanic viewership of AI is more important to audience size, advertiser buys, and product sales - than the black demographic.

On the women - My favorites are Sioban Magnus and Crystal Bowersox.Magnus goes to the beat of a different drum, is the risk-taking sexy rock n' roll gal with a stunning voice. And Bowersox has something really special going on.

The last 2 weeks of those two's performances were standout, an absolute pleasure to watch and listen to.

The other woman who has been a great welcome surprise this season is Ellen Degeneres. She fits in well, has a decent ear, and has been an intelligent as well as consistently entertaining judge. A real plus for the show...and I thought she was gonna bomb.

Nothing wrong with Top 40 or Rap (one of the great incubators of talent) or radio - I love 'em all - I just dislike that we've decided, just like we did in picking this president (and getting the same result) that the usual criteria doesn't matter. You've got to have standards, man. And it isn't between Rap or Rock or whatever but simply between good or bad. If you don't know what makes a song/artist/style good or bad then you're lost.

Scott,

Agree to disagree is a cop-out. You're wrong or I am. One of us, eventually, will redeem his position. Be a man and defend what you're saying - or concede.

I've been doing so. If talent isn't subjective, then it's objective. If it's not subjective, as you've said, I've asked for an objective way of measuring it. I don't believe you've produced one.

The music industry is the economic realization of the abilities of those producing the music. It's got zero to do with talent, as I believe we've both just said. The most talented guitar player in the world might be sitting on a porch in a swamp in Louisiana, for all we know.

To say someone is talented is to agree that what their doing is desirable, beautiful, wondrous, etc. It's one thing to acknowledge obvious ability, like being able to sing through eight scales, but another to call that singer talented.

"Ann - 'And Hispanic contestants have also been going down fast.' Uh, didn't David Archuletta come within a few votes of winning?"

I was only referring to this new season. I don't personally believe the theory cited in the post, but I do see that the minority contestants are going down fast in this group. I think it's mostly that they are worse, but some of it is that they aren't inspiring people to pick up the phone and vote. You have to win motivated fans some way or another.

"If talent isn't subjective, then it's objective. If it's not subjective, as you've said, I've asked for an objective way of measuring it. I don't believe you've produced one."

I have - the musical canon. Here, let me try it another way:

When Eddie Murphy showed up on SNL he was talented. Not just compared to the other comedians on the show, who didn't matter, but to comedy itself - he could only be compared to the greats, which included folks like Andy Kaufman, whether a majority of folks thought Kaufman was weird or not. It doesn't matter if the other SNL alumni went on to bigger careers, made more movies, etc., it was Murphy who raised the bar - based on what we know as comedy.

It works the same way in music: Kelly Clarkson may have a lot of positive attributes (if you don't compare her to anyone good - or think too hard) but, like a lot of folks with careers in entertainment, she'll never be a talented artist.

Lots of confusion, I've never thought AI was about finding the best talent, in the same way that income from recording and concerts isn't about talent.

People pay (or watch) to be entertained, in the case of AI enough people to create good incomes. If someone isn't entertained, they shouldn't watch but please this talent criticism is either silly or elitist. I'll conceed, many of you commenting here are great judges of talent. I'm glad.

I don’t watch AI, but I want to say this about Asians and singing. I lived in Korea for two years. Koreans traditionally sing at parties. Everyone is expected to participate. I would say that an unusually high percentage of the general public in Korea have excellent singing voices.

[quote]It works the same way in music: Kelly Clarkson may have a lot of positive attributes (if you don't compare her to anyone good - or think too hard) but, like a lot of folks with careers in entertainment, she'll never be a talented artist.

Just someone entertaining.[/quote]

First of all, I agree with others that talent is subjective. Furthermore, talented artist is different from talented singer, talented musician, etc... I think Kelly is a talented singer, and one day she may develop into a talented artist. I wish her luck.

Then you, too, are full of shit: Is the talent of The Beatles subjective? Are they at the top of almost everyone's list because of mere popularity - AKA AI - or because they possessed talents beyond the norm?

Let's say you don't like The Beatles, does that have any bearing on their talent, or is it just a statement on your ignorance - or lack of musical taste?

This "music is subjective" bullshit is just lazy "you can see it this way or you can see it that" talk. Music is not subjective in the least:

People have become stupid, beyond belief, and the unwillingness to cop to it (when you've got nothing to rebut what I'm saying) is a prime example of the dumbing down. Here's a bit of help, folks:

There's no shame in being wrong - just in continuing to be so - and, right now, you're shaming yourselves something terrible.